- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,556
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You didn't debunk anything. You simply disparaged my article and provided none of your own in response. I'll give you an example from your link.
my post
your refutation
Marriage equality has gradually changed gay culture in europe? really? Good, just where is your support for your contention?
You didn't debunk anything. You simply disparaged my article and provided none of your own in response. I'll give you an example from your link.
Oh, and important advice if you go with the cut/paste strategy...make sure you update links.
It's a good strategy. When you get those members who aren't here to debate but just post the same debunked crap over and over again and run from threads when they realize they are losing, then by posting the same rebuttals it shows that nobody is taking them seriously anymore and that they are actually going to have to justify their opinions with valid evidence. Most of them just give up and go away, which is fine by me.
Adoption isn't exactly "producing children." You do know that don't you?
I've already provided an article that suggested some 50% of gays think marriage shouldn't be be limited to monogamy.
Looks like the APA changed their site and didn't update the links. I'll have to go look for them. You can read what I wrote, however, I summarized each study with both an abstract and commentary.
go ahead, I'll read them next week. but the fact of the matter is all of these studies essentially reach the same conclusion; gays produce children as well adjusted as straight parents or better adjusted. Nice. Gay parents produce better adjusted children than straights all the time. Quite remarkable when you think of it.
Most of these studies seem to have similar problems;
-most of these studies concentrate on lesbians.
-most of these studies concentrate on whites.
-control groups tend to be based on gays with children from previous hetero marriages, just how do you factor out the effects of divorce on the children? Just how do divorced children show no problems from divorce when most studies show the children of divorce more often than not develop emotional and developemental problems from divorce. Could it be lesbians can mysteriously overcome all those developmental problems simply because their gay?
-just why are there so few longitudal studies of gay parenting?
-representative samples of parents in studies are still mostly very small.
-most reprresentative sample of parents are from urban areas. Are they really representative of the rest of the country?
-virtually all the studies I've read, that includes some of yours the reasearchers have come to eerily similar results......gays, lesbians anyway, tend to produce children as well adjusted as hetero couple, or better! Are there no red flags here for you at all?
-What, exacty qualifies as "well adjusted?"
-if these studies are anything to go by we no longer need men to raise children, unless they're gay of course. So much for all that research that suggests children actually need fathers in order to develop properly.
As I have said in a number of threads, the best option that is realistic (realizing that the government is never going to fully get out of the marriage business) is to abolish the term "marriage" from the law books and replace it with "civil union" country wide. Allow marriage to firmly and completely fall only within one realm, the private realm, rather than straddling both private and public with duel meanings and thus issues revolving around both.
No, however the presence of kids needing adoptive parents leads to a conundrum for your suggestion that government has an interest in marriage due to a desire for them to produce off spring because its essential to our continuation as a society. As a society, we have such an abundance of produced off spring currently that we do not have enough family units to properly care for them all. There is no risk to society failing because people aren't being produced anytime in the near future as we are running at a significant surplus currently.
The general fall back is that its not to PRODUCE children, but to create a healthy environment for raising said children. Again, this fails to work as documented by the studies from CC that shows such an environment can be produced.
You linked to an article that made a statement about a report that hadn't been issued yet and thus had no information regarding the actual question asked, the potential answers, the percentage chance of error, or a legitimate chance to be peer reviewed. Its rather worthless.
And...even if it was legitimate, which is highly dubious, it would still not change the fact that it also means 50% of them believe it SHOULD be monogamous. Taking your ridiculous rampant sex for all homosexual notion, then that means that 50% less would be engaging in such should they be able to enter into an official and beneficial monogamous relationship.
Seriously...you're going to come up with that laundry list of complaints while a few dozen posts backs claim you "proved" something by posting an article that talked about a then unpublished study?
As to the answer to this question, it depends what you mean by a special right really.
I, personally, do not believe that marriage is a "right"...not in the sense that its viewed today, with some kind of government sponsored benefit status. However, what I personally believe is rather useless in this context. The courts have ruled it a right and until such time as that's over turned its the basis for which we need to work.
If its a Right, then said right needs to be equally protected per the EPC clause of the 14th amendment.
Currently, there is a legitimate argument based on gender that the discrimination currently being employed by the government...wherein men can marry women but women can't marry women and vise versa...does not show that such discrimination serves an "important" state interest that "substantially" requires said discrimination to properly perform as would be required for a "Middle-Tier Scrutiny" situation.
As such, it is an equal protection issue based on gender under the 14th amendment that I believe is currently unconstitutional.
Now, with that said...more often then not when people reference EPC its with regards to discrimination against sexual preference, not gender. Sexual preference, currently, is at the minimum tier level of scrutiny and I believe there's enough there to meet that level of scrutiny. As such, until such a time that precedent happens that sets sexual preference as a middle or strict level of scrutiny, I would have to say it doesn't fall under EPC when using that argument. However, there is always the chance that if challenged in that way it may cause the court to evaluate what level of scrutiny such needs to fall under.
As I have said in a number of threads, the best option that is realistic (realizing that the government is never going to fully get out of the marriage business) is to abolish the term "marriage" from the law books and replace it with "civil union" country wide. Allow marriage to firmly and completely fall only within one realm, the private realm, rather than straddling both private and public with duel meanings and thus issues revolving around both.
I provided support for an assertion I made. Gay coupling tends to be short and often non monogamous. I've made no claims to "proving" anything. I have notice a tendancy among my erstwhile liberl/leftist brothers and sisters to some rather remarkable claims themselves tho. Have you not noticed yourself? You have the capacity to read.
go ahead, I'll read them next week. but the fact of the matter is all of these studies essentially reach the same conclusion; gays produce children as well adjusted as straight parents or better adjusted. Nice. Gay parents produce better adjusted children than straights all the time. Quite remarkable when you think of it.
Most of these studies seem to have similar problems;
-most of these studies concentrate on lesbians.
-most of these studies concentrate on whites.
-control groups tend to be based on gays with children from previous hetero marriages, just how do you factor out the effects of divorce on the children? Just how do divorced children show no problems from divorce when most studies show the children of divorce more often than not develop emotional and developemental problems from divorce. Could it be lesbians can mysteriously overcome all those developmental problems simply because their gay?
-just why are there so few longitudinal studies of gay parenting?
-representative samples of parents in studies are still mostly very small.
-most reprresentative sample of parents are from urban areas. Are they really representative of the rest of the country?
-virtually all the studies I've read, that includes some of yours the reasearchers have come to eerily similar results......gays, lesbians anyway, tend to produce children as well adjusted as hetero couple, or better! Are there no red flags here for you at all?
-What, exacty qualifies as "well adjusted?"
-if these studies are anything to go by we no longer need men to raise children, unless they're gay of course. So much for all that research that suggests children actually need fathers in order to develop properly.
As I have said in a number of threads, the best option that is realistic (realizing that the government is never going to fully get out of the marriage business) is to abolish the term "marriage" from the law books and replace it with "civil union" country wide. Allow marriage to firmly and completely fall only within one realm, the private realm, rather than straddling both private and public with duel meanings and thus issues revolving around both.
I firmly believe a tradional family unit composed of two parents, male and female, is the best possible combination to accomplish that goal. Just why do you insist on lowering the bar?
It was an article, not a study. It did however, support my contention monogamous behavior isn't exactly the goal of a great number of homosexual couples, something that has been pointed out in other studies. Would you like for me to produce one? I understand you don't approve of the article. It doesn't fit your political perspective. That still doesn't make it wrong. It just shows you have a bias you want to keep.
That would amount to only 50% and that before the trials and tribulations of marriage. Hetero couples usually go into marriage with somelike a 95% expectation of monogomy. Something like 25% eventually stray. Do the math.
This has also been the solution that I have been professing in a number of threads over the past few years.
Well, yes, much of the "research" I've seen have problems. We're all aware not all research is valid. Not all research is reproducable.
Reseachers do have biases. Several of you have objected to my new york times article. Am I not allowed to object to some of these studies? Are liberals/leftists the only ones allowed to object to sources? Walter shumm has pointed out some of these in a recent study of his. I could provide that. I wouldn't even object if you disagreed with his findings, unlike yourself, of course. :mrgreen:
In regards to my article. I provided support for an assertion I made. Gay coupling tends to be short and often non monogamous. I've made no claims to "proving" anything. I have notice a tendancy among my erstwhile liberl/leftist brothers and sisters to some rather remarkable claims themselves tho. Have you not noticed yourself? You have the capacity to read.
Its a fine COMPREMISE in my opinion but not being gay id wonder what that voice would think of it, but also, dont you think that makes it too easy for people to still argue discrimination?
IMO a name change is just that, discrimination.
The problem with making all marriages civil unions is that it just is not going to happen, not any time soon.
I don't agree that altering the name is discrimination. It can still be called marriage if one gets joined in a church. But I do agree that changing the name for everyone would be a huge undertaking.
.......In her book Children as Trophies? European sociologist Patricia Morgan reviews 144 published studies on same-sex parenting and concludes that it fosters homosexual behaviour, confused gender roles, and increased likelihood of serious psychological problems later in life. A French parliamentary report on the rights of children decried the "flagrant lack of objectivity" in much of the pro-gay research in this area, and concluded with the warning that "we do not yet know all the effects on the construction of the adopted child's psychological identity. As long as there is uncertainty, however small, is it not in the best interest of the child to apply the precautionary principle, as is done in other domains?"(1)
When spouses "fall in love" with their children, it doesn't diminish their love for the other spouse, but enriches it. Same-sex couples may seek children hoping they will provide this same effect, but will more often find them an obstacle to and a competitor for affection..........
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?